Marxism
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

Forwarded from Clinton Fernandes (reply to Tom O'Lincoln)



Response to Tom O'Lincoln

The Indonesian military weren't going to withdraw. They were going to stay and overturn the ballot result. Australia's plan (Operation Spitfire) fitted in with the Indonesian military strategy; the plan was to evacuate all foreign observers so that the Indonesians could act without witnesses.

It was the overwhelming pressure from below that forced the Australian government to send troops in ­ and the US government to warn the Indonesian military to knock it off.

Tom O'Lincoln's hyper-theorising is perhaps intended to justify why his little group of "revolutionaries" sat on the sidelines when the Australian public rose up and demanded that the Timorese be saved. But he cannot escape the facts, which are as follows:

The Indonesian military (TNI) terror campaign was carefully calibrated in intent, timing and location. For all its visceral, punitive aspects, the aim was to reverse the result of the ballot. It would have to be discredited as rigged, by suggesting that a majority of Timorese were voting with their feet. The diplomatic track - of claiming that the ballot had been rigged - functioned alongside the military terror campaign. This claim was made constantly. Allegations of bias were made as early as the day of the ballot, when the strength of the voter turnout signaled that the campaign of intimidation had not worked.

The diplomatic track was accompanied by dramatic scenes of human suffering, which served to blind many observers to what was really going on. The Indonesian military needed to remove all foreigners in order to execute its plan without the impediment of outside attention. Therefore, for all its sensationalism and violent imagery, the execution of the terror campaign was carefully controlled. The military campaign would work sequentially as follows:

1. Use the militia proxies to confine and remove foreign observers. 2. With foreigners gone, attack the local population and use logistics assets to move them across the border. 3. Provoke a desperate retaliation from FALINTIL, thereby drawing it into a conventional war. 4. Announce that TNI was forced to intervene between the "factions", and then, freed from restraints, attack and destroy FALINTIL in conventional warfare. 5. Create new facts on the ground, ensuring that the results of the ballot were irreversibly overturned.

Step 1: Confine and remove foreign observers.

Foreign observers were treated very differently to native Timorese. They were intimidated and driven into confined areas where they could not provide eyewitness reports to the outside world, but they were largely unharmed. There was good reason for this: the Indonesians remembered all too clearly the diplomatic difficulties they encountered in the West following the killings of six Western journalists in 1975. By comparison, the deaths of tens of thousands of Timorese following the 1975 invasion and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Indonesians in 1965-66 did not cause quite so many difficulties with Western governments. The Australian evacuation plan fitted in with the Indonesian strategy. This evacuation plan was known as Operation Spitfire, planning for which commenced on 11 May 1999. The Australian National Audit Office's Performance Audit into the Management of ADF Deployments to East Timor (2002) is very specific about this:

"On 11 May 1999, Defence began planning for Operation Spitfire, the possible involvement of the ADF in an evacuation of UN, Australian and certain other nationals from East Timor" (page 29).

Operation Spitfire was about evacuating personnel, not peacekeeping. The experience of the 3rd Combat Engineer Regiment in Townsville confirms this. On Monday 22 August 1999, the Commanding Officer received a verbal warning-order from Headquarters 3 Brigade for the Conduct of Operations. He was told unambiguously that the operation would be an evacuation operation, not a peacekeeping operation. As the Regimental Sergeant Major said, "The CO advised that the Brigade was undertaking planning for an operation that if launched, would see elements of the formation deployed to East Timor to undertake a Services Protected Evacuation (SPE) of Australian and other approved foreign nationals. The Operation was named as Operation SPITFIRE and if launched would be for 7 to 10 days' duration". (Kevin J Vann, "Bridging The Gap")

Step 2: With foreigners unable to report, attack the local population and use logistics assets to move them across the border.

Timorese, in contrast to foreign observers, were attacked and driven from their homes and shepherded to land or sea transport to West Timor or other parts of Indonesia.

John Martinkus's eye-witness report is as follows: "The entire city is effectively unfit for habitation. There is no water, no power and no telephones. People have been marched at gunpoint out of the city. On Monday and Tuesday we witnessed columns of crying people being herded towards the dock area in scenes reminiscent of the worst footage of World War II. ? On the Sunday and Monday, the boats ­ Indonesian navy and commandeered commercial craft ­ kept arriving and departing. Then, as the Indonesian military became directly involved in rounding up and marching people down to force them to evacuate, the situation turned ugly. Militia, armed with machine guns, were given free rein to search the crowds and take away anyone they recognised. Possessions were rifled and anything of value was stolen. For the deportees, this wasn't the end: according to unofficial reports, they were met by militia when they disembarked in West Timor. More were killed and they were herded into camps, where they remain. Dili was burning; what wasn't burning was stolen, loaded onto military trucks or into the commandeered utes of the militia. In all of this chaos, however, it was remarkable that not one of the more than 1000 foreigners who were in Dili on Saturday when the ballot was announced was killed. That can only support the argument that this was a premeditated, well-organised and executed operation, right down to the continual psychological pressure on those who stayed throughout the successful evacuations that almost led to the UN abandoning the mission entirely on the Wednesday night."

In the two weeks following the 4 September announcement, the UN and Indonesia's National Human Rights Commission estimated that 70% of the buildings had been destroyed. Vital infrastructure was crippled, leaving Dili and major towns without running water, electricity or telephones. Approximately 250,000 people were estimated to have been driven across the border to West Timor and other Indonesian islands. Thousands of frightened Timorese fled to the hills and into the UN compound, which was besieged. It was clear that this was an organised campaign, planned and directed by senior Indonesian generals, whose aim was to reverse the ballot and create new demographic facts on the ground.

The Australian government continued to make public statements that took the pressure off Indonesia. Alexander Downer, for instance, said:

I get the impression that President Habibie, Mr Alatas, General Wiranto are all trying to do the right thing. And some of the commanders, clearly, are trying to do the right thing. But there have been and there still are some fairly wild elements within the Indonesian military. (Meet the Press 1999)

Step 3: Provoke a desperate retaliation from FALINTIL, thereby drawing it into a conventional war.

This terror campaign would have the added benefit of provoking FALINTIL into a desperate retaliation, thereby drawing it into something approaching conventional warfare, where the TNI clearly had the advantage. A FALINTIL reaction would allow the Indonesians to claim that it had to intervene between the "factions". The pressure on FALINTIL was indeed severe. In Uai Mori on the northern coast, Taur Matan Ruak (Operational Commander, FALINTIL) was receiving reports of the devastation and finding it almost impossible to remain in cantonment. Speaking by satellite telephone to Xanana Gusmao on 7 September, the day of Gusmao's release from house arrest, Matan Ruak conveyed his feelings to Gusmao. Gusmao implored him to stay in the cantonments and, after further frantic messages, Matan Ruak agreed.

Step 4: Announce that TNI was forced to intervene between the "factions", and then, freed from restraints, attack and destroy FALINTIL in conventional warfare.

The Indonesian strategy failed at Step 4. While it imposed martial law under the pretext of "intervening between the factions", and continued to claim that the ballot had been rigged, it was unable to go any further.

The imposition of martial law was accompanied by familiar allegations that the ballot had been rigged. Indonesia's Permanent Representative to the UN reiterated this allegation when he claimed that the violence had been triggered by 'the deep disappointment of pro-autonomy factions over the referendum's outcome, coupled with UNAMET's failure to respond satisfactorily to reports of irregularities before and during the vote'.

Indonesia talked up the violence and the dangers, knowing that Western governments contemplating a peacekeeping force were reluctant to accept casualties. Ali Alatas, warning that a foreign peacekeeping mission could sustain casualties, spoke of the 'failure of this kind of mission when there is no peace yet to be kept'. The second was the announcement that additional troops were being deployed. Ostensibly to 'maintain law and order', their significance was clear, and recognised as such by military planners overseas ­ foreign governments (like Australia) should realise that a unilateral intervention would meet armed opposition. On occasion, the significance was overt: the Air Force Commander was quoted as saying "We are ready to face any intruders from Australia". Clear and unambiguous warnings were issued, in case the message had not registered: 'Any nations willing to send peacekeepers to the province would have to shoot their way in'. This warning, issued by Foreign Minister (and Officer of the Order of Australia) Ali Alatas, showed just how little clout the Australian government had when it mattered most. Ruling out peacekeepers, Alatas warned, 'Don't give us ultimatums, don't talk to us about peacekeepers'.

The US understood the message clearly; Samuel Berger, National Security Adviser to President Clinton, noted that there were '20,000, roughly, Indonesian soldiers in Timor, and obviously in the absence of [Indonesian] agreement, it could be a rather bloody situation'.

The Australian government's initial reaction to the Indonesian campaign of state-sponsored terror was shock and paralysis. The government's diplomatic representations to the Indonesian government had no effect at all. The "special relationship", nurtured by successive Australian governments despite the disapproval of the public, had given it no leverage whatsoever.

The immediate US reaction to the ethnic cleansing campaign was that it was not contemplating military intervention. It signalled the Indonesians that there would not be any meaningful US opposition to their actions, although they would need to act quickly to take the heat out of the issue. US Ambassador to Indonesia, Stapleton Roy met President Habibie but said that 'the topic of armed peacekeepers was not discussed':

That was not the purpose of our discussion. It was to explore any ideas that could be helpful. We were not there to make a proposal for armed peacekeepers. We were there to explore how to assist Indonesia with its responsibility to maintain a good security environment there and how the international community could be more helpful.

At the regular Pentagon briefing on 7 September 1999, spokesman Kenneth Bacon talked about 'regrettable and unfortunate problems in East Timor'. He said that the US position was clear: 'We are going to continue to encourage the Indonesian authorities to provide security. Second, we are going to await the report of the UN survey team, and when we have that information in hand, we'll decide what to do'. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger also signalled the Indonesians that although they had to wind up operations quickly, the US would not intervene:

My daughter has a very messy apartment up in college, maybe I shouldn't intervene to have that cleaned up. I don't think anybody ever articulated a doctrine which said that we ought to intervene wherever there's a humanitarian problem. The assessment of the TNI leadership was that it could stave off international pressure long enough to create new facts on the ground. This assessment was based on a rational understanding of the nature of power: as long as the UN, not the US, was most insistent, the TNI could act with a degree of freedom. The Indonesian military understood all too well what former US Secretary of State George Shultz once said about the rule of force in world affairs: 'Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table'. Shultz went on to dismiss those who advocated 'utopian, legalistic means like outside mediation, the United Nations, and the World Court, while ignoring the power element of the equation' (Shultz 1986). This was identical to the assessment of the Indonesian military.

The reality of the situation was obvious to all when UN spokesman Fred Eckhard "admitted that the UN did not even have a contingency plan to contain the violence". Indonesia could therefore afford to ignore UN officials like Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who called for the convening of a 'special session of the UN Commission on Human Rights'. Indonesia could also afford to stonewall the UN Security Council's five-man mission that arrived in Jakarta on 8 September, particularly in light of the remarks of the man who sent them, UN Security Council President Arnold Peter van Walsum of the Netherlands. Van Walsum made it clear that the Council would not authorize the deployment of foreign forces without the express consent of the Indonesian government. Effectively conceding what the Indonesians already knew ­ that the UN Security Council mission had no leverage without the 'shadow of power cast across the bargaining table' ­ van Walsum said:

I can assure you the Security Council will not give the green light if there is no permission on the part of the Indonesian government (Aita 1999).

The Indonesian authorities could draw comfort from the Chinese government's statements in the UN Security Council, where it held a veto. China's Ambassador to the UN, Shen Guofang, said that "although some Council members called for armed peacekeepers, Beijing would not want any such step taken without Indonesia's consent".

The Australian public was outraged at what it saw and demanded intervention to save the Timorese. Kerry Myers, Letters Editor at the Sydney Morning Herald, noted that the public response 'was quite overwhelming:

Readers were shocked, angered, saddened, appalled by the terrible, terrible story. But what was almost palpable was the frustration and impotence expressed by so many. Correspondents wanted something, anything, done to relieve the suffering they were exposed to through daily news reports from Dili. And there appeared nothing much they could do at all. Letters attacked the government, specifically the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, for what the writers saw as hand-wringing inaction? And as the week wore on there was the chilling realisation that there was to be no rescue for the East Timorese.

Downer recalled that 'people were ringing up, crying over the phone, we had more calls on that issue than I've ever had in my life on anything'.

The public was doing much more than 'ringing up' and 'crying over the phone'; the union movement had swung into action, dramatically increasing the pressure on the government. Rank-and-file anger had taken the union leadership by surprise. Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Leigh Hubbard said that 'a lot of these members are ahead of the leadership on this one'. The Australian Services Union declared bans on Garuda. The Transport Workers Union banned the airport loading of all Indonesian freight. The CEPU put national bans on all mail and telecommunication services, including fault repairs, to the Indonesian Consulate and to Indonesian businesses. The MUA declared all Indonesian shipping and freight banned, stranding $22 million in wheat in Melbourne. In Sydney, a Malaysian ship was held up until Indonesia-bound containers were taken off. In Newcastle, wharfies refused to load produce bound for Indonesia and about 30 containers were taken off a vessel in Brisbane. In Adelaide, the MUA took 20 containers to a warehouse and declared they would not be released until Timor was free. The International Transport Workers Federation called on its 500 affiliates worldwide to follow the example of the MUA and 'organise appropriate protest action against Indonesian commercial interests including air and sea traffic coming from or bound for Indonesian ports and airports'. Thousands of CFMEU members walked off construction sites to join rallies around the country; the CFMEU also provided significant resources and logistical support, backed by the Labor Council of NSW. In Melbourne, the union banned the use of Indonesian supplies worth $7 million. The Australian Workers Union stepped up the pressure, telling BP, Caltex and Shell not to order Indonesian oil because its members would refuse to process it. Garbage workers - with the backing of Randwick Council - refused to pick up rubbish from the Indonesian Consulate. Printing workers refused to handle paper products made in Indonesia. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union called for all government departments - including the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games - to suspend production contracts with Indonesia. The Australian Nurses Federation placed members on standby to respond overseas if necessary.

The Australian Education Union urged public schools to support peace in East Timor by observing two minutes silence at midday on Tuesday. Students and teachers were asked to use lesson time to draft letters to world leaders asking for their help to bring peace and freedom to East Timor.

Realising for the first time the seriousness of its own position in the electorate, the government finally did what it could have done months ago ­ work with the US to exert pressure on Indonesia to allow peacekeepers in.

Contrary to the Australian government's earlier claims, four days of diplomatic pressure is all it took for Indonesia to agree to foreign troops. The earlier US stance was based on its calculation that it 'must put its relationship with Indonesia, a mineral-rich nation of more than 200 million people, ahead of its concern over the political fate of East Timor, a tiny impoverished territory of 800,000 people that is seeking independence'. The public bitterness and official dismay at the reluctance of the US to respond to Australian requests meant that a reappraisal of the relationship would be inevitable unless something was done. Warned that the alliance was in jeopardy, the Clinton administration acted swiftly. As a senior official said, "We don't have a dog running in the East Timor race, but we have a very big dog running down there called Australia and we have to support it".

Wednesday 8 September 1999 was the day that serious diplomatic initiatives began. The Clinton cabinet made an in-principle decision to support a peace- keeping operation. To that end, its official pronouncements on the Timor situation carried a hint of menace towards Indonesia. Defence Secretary William Cohen warned that 'the international community has a number of levers we can pull on. There are serious economic consequences to be sure'. State Department spokesman James Rubin also reminded his audience that:

Indonesia's relations with the international community, including the United States, are at risk here... we do spend tens of millions of dollars on economic development directly with the Indonesian Government and, obviously, the Indonesian government receives substantial billions of dollars in support pursuant to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The International Monetary Fund has indicated it is closely monitoring the situation in East Timor.

Aware of the power of the TNI, the US leadership ensured that its messages went to the right address. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton telephoned Wiranto during the week after the announcement of the referendum result. The message was also delivered in person - Admiral Dennis Blair, Commander-In-Chief of the US forces in the Pacific, spoke to General Wiranto in Jakarta on 8 September 1999. Greenlees and Garran (2002: 243-244), quoting Admiral Blair, do not 'characterize what went on', but Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering revealed that Blair informed Wiranto that the US was suspending its military ties with Indonesia.

For the Australian government, the coincidental timing of the APEC meeting in Auckland was crucial. Scheduled for the weekend of 11-12 September 1999, it allowed for intensive lobbying of the US President, who would be attending. Crucially, it allowed for face-to-face meetings between all the key players. In days leading up to the APEC meeting, the US's warnings became unmistakable. On 9 September, just before leaving for New Zealand, Clinton warned that 'if Indonesia does not end the violence, it must invite ­ IT MUST INVITE ­ the international community to assist in restoring security... it would be a pity if the Indonesian recovery were crashed by this'[Emphasis in the original]. He said that his 'own willingness to support future assistance will depend very strongly on the way Indonesia handles this situation'. If the violence continued, there would be 'overwhelming public sentiment to stop the international economic cooperation? nobody is going to want to continue to invest there if they are allowing this sort of travesty to go on'. Later, in a refueling stop at Hickham Air Force Base in Hawaii, he was briefed on the Timor situation by Admiral Dennis Blair, who had recently met Wiranto. Then, while aboard Air Force One en route to Auckland, Clinton issued his strongest statement yet, accusing the TNI of direct involvement: 'It is clear the Indonesian military is aiding and abetting the militia violence? This is simply unacceptable'.

The IMF and the World Bank fell into line with the US as well; two days after Clinton's warning, the IMF announced that it was suspending its scheduled visit to Indonesia, required for the approval of the next instalment of US$450 million. The IMF threat was very real: its total rescue package was $12.3 billion, of which $2.3 billion was yet to be transferred. Hubert Neiss, the IMF's Asia-Pacific director, also warned Indonesia to end the violence if it wanted its loan review to be re-scheduled. The director of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, urged President Habibe to honour the results of the referendum; later, the Bank froze its $1 billion aid program to Indonesia.

The TNI could read the writing on the wall. In a visit to Dili on 11 September, Wiranto acknowledged as much when he said, "We cannot rule out the possibility of accelerating the arrival of the peace-keeping force". Finally, in an emergency debate in the UN Security Council on 12 September 1999, US envoy Richard Holbrooke warned Indonesia that it faced 'the point of no return in international relations' if it did not accept an international peacekeeping force.

Indonesia's resistance ended within hours. On 12 September 1999, Habibie emerged from a special Cabinet meeting, stood alongside Wiranto and made a nationwide announcement of the decision to allow a UN force into Timor. Wiranto's presence beside Habibie sent a clear signal that the TNI was aligned with the decision. There was a last-ditch attempt by the Indonesians to determine the composition of the force; the Indonesian military spokesman Brigadier General Sudrajat said that 'the armed forces reject Australia as part of any peacekeeping troops? the majority of the force [should] come from ASEAN'.

However, this was quickly resolved by the US's insistence that Indonesia not interfere: "they should not be able to say who is in or not in the force and what the structure of the force would be".

Hours after Sudrajat's protests, Habibie confirmed to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that Indonesia was 'putting up no conditionalities, so it is all up to the United Nations to prepare the composition'.

This is how Australian troops were sent in ­ from an evacuation mission, which fitted in with the TNI strategy, to a peace keeping mission, which the Australian government had done its best to avoid. It was forced to turn against its Indonesian ally, albeit temporarily, because of pressure from below.




Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]